Skip to main content

Robert Boyle as theistic mechanist: and some thoughts re Plato/Aristotle

Interesting point by Bill Dembski in The Design Revolution: that Robert Boyle introduced a mechanistic view of the world in order to safeguard theism from the immanent teleology of Aristotelianism, which in his view did not seem as open to the divine.

Makes me anxious to reread Timaeus on the nature of nature.

Every mechanistic universe needs a non-mechanistic motor: think of gravity for Newton: it is not mechanically caused. Interesting that Aristotle's thoroughly non-mechanistic universe does have some push and pull to it: spheres drive much of the movement that occurs on earth. But the natural movement of the four elements as well as organic activity are not mechanically driven. Most importantly, the spheres while themselves responsibile for pushing a lot of things around, are drawn by love of what is higher. Aristotle may have rejected a lot of what Plato proposed, but when it came to the Good being supreme, he would have agreed with his teacher, albeit while describing it in more personal terms: thought thinking of thought.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more